1. What does it say about a movement when some of its loudest voices refuse to engage in public discourse with any individuals who may have opinions different from their own?

2. What does it say about a movement when some of its loudest voices freely circulate highly sensationalized but completely unsubstantiated data – yet refuse to stand up to challenges to confirm that data?

3. What does it say about a movement when activists march on city streets carrying signs that are deliberately designed to scare people with skewed, false or unrelated data – and they don’t even know it?

I have a personal reason for writing this post. I used to be an anti-GMO blogger as many readers know and it was just these types of questions that, when answered, compelled me to make the only decision a rational, thinking person could make – to cut and run!

I still observe the movement – from the perspective of my rear view mirror. As my Honda pulls further and further away, the hype is getting smaller, the fear fading around each new bend. And the void-of-information-coat rack that the movement hangs its hat on? That is the one thing in the movement that gets bigger as I settle into cruise control. I know the activists mean well and think they are saving the world but all I have to say is bub-bye. This isn’t for me.

Let’s get into more detail about the questions above, shall we?

What does it say about a movement when some of its loudest voices refuse to engage in public discourse with any individuals who may have opinions different from their own?

On June 4 there was to be an unprecedented debate at the CATO Institute in Washington DC. Originally dubbed “The Great Biotechnology Debate: Food and Farming in the Balance” – it was to feature prominent spokespeople from both sides of the genetically modified table. We are talking heavyweights here. From the anti-GMO side we had the movement’s leading crusader Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute of Responsible Technology. Alongside Smith via Skype was to be Gilles-Éric Séralini, well-known in both camps for his controversial study linking tumor growth on rats to being fed GM corn from birth. Balancing out the roundtable were pro-science proponents Kevin Folta, University of Florida plant geneticist and Jon Entine of the Genetic Literacy Project. Sparks were sure to fly but some understanding would eventually be reached, right?

The refusal of these movement luminaries to jump in the ring and defend their strong anti-GMO position is a let down to say the least.

Let’s move on to question two.

What does it say about a movement when some of its loudest voices freely circulate highly sensationalized but completely unsubstantiated data – yet refuse to stand up to challenges from mainstream science to confirm that data?

This question harkens back to March 15 of this year and the now infamous “Stunning corn report” originally posted byMoms Across America, a very vocal branch of the anti-GMO tree. After its initial posting, the corn comparison table was widely syndicated throughout the blogosphere, and I do mean widely. Ideal fodder for the GMO bashing I-told-you-soes, every major anti-GMO website picked it up and ran with it, including Mercola.com which has wide circulation and is cited as gospel by its loyal followers.

Skeptoid’sJosh DeWald, known for exposing psuedo-science in Mercola articles, wrote: Given that the study […], has little to no methodological information other than the (corn) fields being “side by side”, it strikes me as irresponsible to use it as the source for an article that will potentially be read by thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. Actually Josh, maybe more like millions when it’s all said and done.

DeWald wasn’t the only one who had issues with the report. Kevin Folta (mentioned above) blogged that the data couldn’t possibly reflect corn of any kind but was most likely soil data if it was indeed any kind of real data at all. Concerning the data, Folta humorously wrote, “Wait a minute… there’s more copper, zinc and iron than carbon in a corn kernel? What?” For the full post see Folta’s blog Illumination/Anti-GMO Data Stokes Alarm.

Folta recently revisited this corn comparison on his blog in an attempt to settle this matter once and for all via a re. The idea was to design and carry out a test that could be replicated in multiple locations. Moms Across America founder Zen Honeycut, Howard Vlieger (the person who supposedly conducted the original test) and the other interested parties were invited to participate. Things started to turn wishy washy during the initial emails and finally the entire group backed away from the redo entirely. The record is all there at Illumination. Starting with Verifying Stunning Corn Data, you can follow the story on Folta’s blog.

Again, this to me is another disappointment on the part of the anti-GMO movement. Hey guys, if you’re so sure your corn table is correct, why not agree to try to replicate the data? That’s how science gets taken seriously. Needless to say, in the meantime this corn report has scared millions of people worldwide into thinking GM corn is not only lower in nutrition, but actually toxic.

Perfect segue into the third and final question.

What does it say about a movement when activists march on city streets carrying signs that are deliberately designed to scare people with skewed, false or unrelated data – and they don’t even know it?

The most recent iteration of the movement was the “March Against Monsanto” (MAM) event which happened this past Saturday, May 25. Some 436 cities and 52 countries worldwide were involved and I considered attending the Portland rally to take in the costumes and signs and snap some photos, but it was very far across town for me and I really needed to get my hair done so I got a cut and weave instead.

Some of the signs carried in this global effort were constructive in their asking for labeling and more transparency about what is in our food. Others, however, were just plain wrong or misleading. Granted, some, like the one pictured left score an eleven in cuteness but of course, placing any sign in the hands of an adorable little girl is going to melt hearts.

In one photo there was another cute little girl on her father’s shoulders carrying a sign that read GMOs are not healthy for children and other living things. Quite a sweeping statement for such a little girl, even if she is on daddy’s shoulders.But where is the evidence to back up such a generality?In many cities, Save the Bees signs were peppered in with the Monsanto signs. The photo below, taken in Salt Lake City, shows a young woman carrying a Bee Killer sign. Do activists know that there is NO evidence linking bee die off or Colony Collapse Disorder to GMOs? (see related blog post in Discover)

There was a well dressed gentleman marching in Los Angeles with a gas mask over his face. Nice effect. Does he know that there is evidence that pesticide use has declined because of GMOs? (See In Their Own Words: Farmers Weigh In On GMOs) In South Africa, a tribesman clad in traditional garb wielded a sign that read: Monsatan – famine, poison and disease. Yikes!

It’s interesting to note that much, if not all of this protesting and marching was going on sans input from farmers who actually use Monsanto seeds. I saw a few Save our farms signs but did anyone bother to ask any farmers how they actually feel about GMOs or Monsanto? Click the links below to find out.

If you’re a farmer who supports the March Against Monsanto, I welcome your perspective and would love to hear from you in the comment section.

In conclusion, I’d like to reaffirm that my answers to these three questions led me away from the anti-GMO movement, and I haven’t regretted the about face for even a moment. May I go out on a limb and suggest that it’s a terrible waste of time and resources to bark up the wrong tree? As a sleuth, I want to get to the heart of health issues with the full support of evidence.

Love what Marie did here. I went to school at the University of Oregon (go Ducks!) for two years, know Eugene well, and these photos depict to perfection the Birkensock wearing, drug paraphernalia selling, ripe for a rally typical Eugene activist. I’m not sure the rest of the world’s marches looked quite like this one!

On Saturday May 25th there were rallies, protests & marches held around the world against Monsanto, a biotechnology, seed & chemical company.

I disagreed with the whole premise of the “march”. I disagree with their view about biotechnology. I disagree with their view about chemicals. I believe in multiple methods of farming. However, I attended the rally in Eugene anyways because I always find it valuable to get first hand experience.

The entire plaza smelled like body odor, weed and cigarette smoke. I am sorry that the smell cannot translate through the photos and video*.

Picture #1: IRONY. The people who are protesting Monsanto and advocating for burning crops are the same people who protested against field burning. A practice my family did on our farm for decades until it was outlawed in 2009. Also, I was trying to capture the cigarette in her hand…last time I…

Growing Season, a website devoted to compiling a yearlong docu-drama about a central Nebraska farming family growing a crop for the year’s harvest, passed along this link to its YouTube channel. There is a video clip of “Boss Joe” Bartak talking about what GMOs have done for farming in the area. This clip hardly depicts the dismal portrait of large scale conventional farming painted by anti-GMO activists!

Some key points Bartak makes in the video:

1. Conventional farmers and ranchers are environmentalists too!

2. He points to a field that hasn’t been sprayed with insecticide forfour years because of GMOs.

3. Soil health is being improved in the area because of GMOs.

4. Farm workers enjoy a safer environment because of GMOs. They are no longer exposed to organophosphates, carbamates, and other more potent pesticides.

Awhile back I put out an open call to farmers who might be interested in answering some questions about their farms and farming practices. I wanted to hear from big operations, little operations, those that use GMOs, those that don’t. The responses were enthusiastic, varied, and I am excited to present the finished results today. I sent out questionnaires to eight farmers and received five back. Though not every type of grain, crop or produce farm is represented below, it is, I think, a fair representation of styles of farming in America today.

I still welcome input from any other farmers who would like to participate and I very much appreciate the thoughtful answers I received. If you are interested in future involvement please leave a comment below or email sleuth4health@gmail.com.

Before I go any further I’d like to say a few words about the scope of farmers and what they mean to our world through my eyes. I admit, I don’t know a lot about farming. I have a stepbrother, Pat, who with the help of his family, owns and operates a large wheat operation in Eastern Oregon. Their land is so vast over there that Pat has trained for a few marathons just running about his fields! With no irrigation, their farm is completely dependent on rain – in north eastern Oregon (semi-arid climate). I have heard stories of fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants growing seasons and broken combine air conditioners during harvest. That is the extent of what I know about farming.

When I take a step back and ponder all that is dependent on what farmers grow, it is more than humbling. I can start with food, clothing, shelter and get much more specific from there but I feel those three italicized words can stand alone. Does it get more basic than that? Farmers, thank you for all you do. You sustain us. I’ve truly enjoyed this glimpse into your world.

To start, let’s meet the farmers – in their own words!

Showing off the new John Deere. Mike Bendzela (far left) one of four partners at Dow Farm

Mike Bendzela of Dow Farm Enterprise: I’m one of four partners at Dow Farm Enterprise, a (very) small market farm and CSA (community supported agriculture) in Standish, Maine. My soon-to-be spouse Don Essman is on the right. Our “landlords” and co-partners, Ken Faulstich and Claudia White are in the middle. Dow Farm is a tiny flea on a big planet.

We grow about a hundred different varieties of vegetable crops in Northern New England. We’re basically a home garden gone wild. All together, we cultivate just over an acre of crops, and we also have a small orchard of 85 trees, mostly “heritage” apples. The idea was to partially restore the farm that Claudia’s great-grandfather, Herbert W. Dow, ran a century ago. We’ve found most of the apple tree varieties he planted. We add a little bit more to the vegetable plots each year.

Tom and Barbara Womack of Homestead Hill Farm: Our farm is a small, diverse operation located in Southern Augusta County, Virginia – in the heart of the Shenandoah Valley. Originally, it was a whole-family operation. Now that the chicks have grown and flown, it’s just us empty-nesters. We grow all sorts of vegetables and fruits as well as raise chickens and sheep. Our chickens provide delicious eggs and excellent meat. The sheep keep the grass mowed and provide lamb products so tasty that no one seems to miss the mint jelly.

Jan Hoadley of Slow Money Farm: I’m an Illinois native now in northwest Alabama getting ready to expand into Kentucky. We do custom options – rabbits, poultry, produce and herbs right now. We’ll be expanding into larger stock – sheep, pigs, cattle – with the purchase of land in Kentucky. We just don’t have room here! We do farm shares, food packages and CSA with flexibility to allow for food choices. There’s a special focus on heritage/heirloom production. Visit Slow Money Farm on Facebook.

Slow Money Farms Anconas and Sussex egg layers

Brian Scott

Brian Scott: I’m a 4th generation farmer growing corn, soybeans, popcorn, and wheat in Northwest Indiana. More specifically we raise dent corn, waxy corn, commercial soybeans, and soybeans for seed as well. We grow soybean seed for two different companies. Visit Brian’s blog: The Farmer’s Life.

Tractor shopping at the John Deere Dealer with four generations! Pictured are Brian Scott (left), son Matthew in tow, Brian’s dad and grandpa

I asked each of these farmers a short set of questions. Below you will find each question followed by the answers in the same order as above. It was extremely interesting to get different perspectives on the same issues. Happy reading!

1. Who or what is your market?

M. Bendzela/Dow Farm: We went from four subscribers in 2011, to ten in 2012, to nineteen this year. We’re what you would call a traditional CSA. We also take what we can to a small farmers market in Gorham, Maine. This is not a big-time operation. I have a “real” job, of course: I teach writing at the University of Southern Maine. I’m on a leave-of-absence from a volunteer fire-rescue gig with our town until I figure out how well the farm is going to do and whether it will persist.

B. Womack/Homestead Hill Farm:All our products are sold directly to the end consumer, primarily at the Staunton/Augusta Farmers Market.

D. Wilde/West Texas Cotton Farm:The dryland cotton that we raise here is of lower quality (shorter fibers and less strength.) This leads to our cotton being used for lower end cotton products, not the luxury shirts and sheets. Due to this, most of our cotton is exported to China and India where they have the proper mills to weave this quality of cotton.

J. Hoadley/Slow Money Farm: We market to those who want food choices and transparency. When people buy a group of birds or some meat rabbits for us, they can do so with confidence in knowing where they were raised and what they ate. They have the option to follow the growth of their food, should they care to. It costs a little more sometimes, but often we’re competitive with grocery stores. We normally sell direct to the customer.

B. Scott/corn, soybeans, popcorn & wheat farmer: Our dent corn mostly goes to The Andersons. Some to a normal grain terminal, or if the the price is right for the extra few miles of trucking we’ll go another 10 miles to their ethanol plant. We occasionally sell corn to a local elevator that operates quite a few hog facilities. All our waxy corn goes to Tate & Lyle. We grow popcorn for Weaver Popcorn. You’ll find Weaver branded as Pop Weaver, Pop Secret, and many private labels including Trails End which is sold by Boy Scouts. They are also suppliers for some other companies and movie theaters. And the Pentagon cafeteria! Soybeans will also go to The Andersons, and sometimes further down the road to an ADM facility in Frankfort, Indiana where they process bean meal and soybean oil. The new high oleic oil varieties go there although we have not contracted any acres for that process yet. Here is a blog post about all this. http://thefarmerslife.com/agchat/where-does-my-harvest-go/

2. Do you use any kind of genetically modified seed? Why or why not? And if so, what type(s)?

M. Bendzela/Dow Farm: No GMOs, simply because they’re not available to small farmers. I hesitate even to call myself “farmer,” which makes me think of thousands of acres and huge equipment in the Midwest (where I grew up). I’m more comfortable with “grower” or “market gardener.” I’d plant GMOs if they were available. Well, depending on what our customers thought about it, of course. Popular opinion is an issue. Most of our friends and customers are very liberal, and liberals’ marching orders demand that they hate hate hate GMOs. We’re very old-fashioned here, but I have a foot in the future as well as one in the past. Here’s how we plant potatoes (see photo below). I’d plant genetically-engineered potatoes the same way, if we could ever get them.

B. Womack/Homestead Hill Farm: Presently, we do NOT use genetically modified seed. GM seeds are not available for the crops we grow. We do, however, find ourselves talking about GMOs constantly.

Our animals eat grain (and that opens a whole ‘nother can of worms…) The only options at present for feed grains are “certified organic” and well… not. Certified organic feed is at least double the cost of “not”. We have been doing this whole thing since long before GMOs became an issue and our animals have always done extremely well on regular feed, so it doesn’t seem economically prudent to make a switch. It is our customers’ concern with the whole GMO in feed thing that got me interested in researching the subject of genetically modified organisms. Since we are on a first name basis with the feed mill owner, he was my first information source when it came to GMO feed. He was astounded at the questions and concerns from our customers. He pointed out that much of the information that is constantly repeated in internet-land is totally and utterly false. While the grain we use is LOCAL, I have absolutely no idea how it is produced.

D. Wilde/West Texas Cotton Farm: I plant GM cottonseed that carry the Boll worm Resistant (Bt2) and Round Up Ready Flex (RRF) genes. The Bt2 trait makes the cotton resistant to the cotton boll worm, our major pest pressure. Once I started planting the Bt2 cottonseed, I was able to stop spraying insecticide. Since I don’t spray insecticide, the beneficial insects are now flourishing and controlling the minor pests naturally. Without the Bt2 trait, I would have to spray several times a year to control the boll worm, which leads to spraying for other pests because the beneficial insects are effected also. In a recent trip to Brazil, the farmers there told us that they don’t use GM cottonseed and they spray up to 13 times for insects.

Dry land cotton farm owned by Daniel and Suzie Wilde near San Angelo in West Central Texas. Cotton pictured here contains a genetic trait which makes it resistant to the boll worm.

The Round Up Ready Flex trait allows me to spray Round Up, a weed herbicide, over my growing cotton at any point during the year. However, after only a couple of years with the RRF trait, I was able to clean my fields so well with timely applications that there are very few weeds left to go to seed. Therefore, I only apply 2 applications of Round Up per year. The second application is only applied at the spots in the field that have weed pressure. T(If we receive rainfall at unusual times, this can lead to a crop of weeds that may require another spot application.) The clean fields don’t require tractors and plows in the field any longer. Back before the the RRF cottonseed, we would use a knifing plow to keep the weeds clean several times throughout the growing season.

J. Hoadley/Slow Money Farm: No we don’t – mainly because, despite what many think, it’s just not available for what we do. We also have a personal preference for conserving heritage/heirloom varieties.

B. Scott/corn, soybeans, popcorn & wheat farmer: All our of soybeans have been Roundup Ready for several years. RR soybeans fields have really great weed control on our farm. We rotate our crops and the types of herbicides we use which are important parts of weed control.

Most all of our dent corn contains multiple traits known and triple stacks. These are Roundup Ready and have multiple events for insect resistance.Most of what we planted this year is also tolerant to Liberty Link (glufosinate) herbicide. For Bt fields we do have to plant refuge acres that contain non-Bt corn to prevent resistance forming. This refuge is now being integrated as refuge-in-a-bag where the refuge corn is mixed in with the Bt as opposed to two separate products. I think this is a good thing as it will prevent some of those farms who plant corn after corn and don’t take the time to plant a refuge from doing so.

Waxy corn generally is not GMO. We’ve had some RR varieties in the past, but don’t spray Roundup on that corn because we have non-RR corn in the same field. Waxy is a big thing in the immediate area because there is a market, but I find you don’t have to go far to find a corn farmer who doesn’t know about waxy. So nationwide it is a small market. Breeders have a hard enough time taking a strong hybrid and breeding a waxy version that performs well. Pioneer had 5 or 6 varieties for use to choose from this season vs dozens of dent corn choices. The market isn’t large enough to support the cost of making GMO waxy. That being said I think it’s good we have at least half our corn crop where we can’t spray glyphosate. That way we aren’t adding to that selective pressure that leads to resistance.

Same goes for popcorn. Right now there is no such thing as a GMO popcorn plant available. Popcorn is not as tough a plant as field corn, so it will show signs of stress before the rest of our corn given similar circumstances.

All our corn and popcorn comes with seed treatments and so do most of our soybeans. Between seed treatments and Bt it’s a pretty rare thing for us to have to come in with a sprayer or airplane during the summer to take care of any pests. The good thing about different forms of Bt is that they are very specific in what pests they control vs spraying a pesticide over the entire field. Also we purchased a new planter in 2012 and did not equip it with a liquid application system. This means we are no longer applying liquid fertilizer at planting or the insecticide Capture as we were doing in the past.

3. Has your experience with GM seed been favorable? Are you a repeat customer?

M. Bendzela/Dow Farm: No experience with GM seed. It’s just not available. I used to be against it, because I was a self-styled “organic” gardener for awhile, and such opinions were part of the package. I even had a part-time summer job at an organic farm for several years. About five years ago, I got nosy and started reading the standards and “fact” sheets for organic farming. I’m interested in the skeptics movement, and they convinced me that “organic” is pretty much a scam. I started feeling pretty stupid once I discovered what “organics” was really about. I now see the movement as a sort of secular religion. GMOs are their Devil. I now just call myself “grower.” I’m currently against any group or movement that puts an adjective before the word “farming.”

D. Wilde/West Texas Cotton Farm: I have told many people that if I have to go back to spraying for insects all the time, I don’t want to farm any longer. That has been the best benefit of all, to be able to eliminate most of the chemicals from my operation. The Round Up that I still use is a very safe and effective chemical that I feel good about using. It is not like the pre-emergent weed herbicide that I used before, which stays in the ground much longer and can have more runoff effects. I have planted GM cottonseed for maybe the past 10 years, with the only downside being the much higher cost. However, I feel that all the benefits I have far outweighs the extra expense. I have no intentions of going back to non-GM seed, however, there are hundreds of varieties that are non-GM available for farmers who live in areas that don’t have pest and weed pressure or who just choose not to grow it.

J. Hoadley/Slow Money Farm: With a large % of corn said to be GM, it’s likely that our chickens have eaten it as we don’t buy organic feed. There just isn’t the interest in paying double the cost of eggs (feed is double the cost) in order to have organic. We are looking at non GMO options for feed to serve those customers who wish to avoid it even in the meats they eat.

B. Scott/corn, soybeans, popcorn & wheat farmer: We like our GM crops. They perform well for us. Of course our non-GMO do well too. Personally I think we need to scrutinize insect pressure on our farm more intensely and see if we can buy less Bt in some fields for no other reason than to save some money on seed cost. We’ve seen our refuge corn perform as well or better when pest populations are low. But seeing as we have now integrated cover crops onto a good deal of the farm I wonder what bugs we are attracting by being the big green patch in the middle of brown patches during the winter.

4.Do you see GM seed in your sustainable farming future? Even if you’re not yet using it, or can’t yet use it because it isn’t available for your type/size of farm, do you see it as a way to sustain and/or help your operations? Why or why not?

M. Bendzela/Dow Farm: Sustainable is just a word. I agree with Professor Albert Bartlett that “sustainable” has both “virtue and vagueness” and can mean “anything you want it to mean.” Farming takes over land, grows populations, and uses non-renewable (fossil) fuels. Therefore, farming is, by definition, “un”sustainable. I do not care to speculate about what this means for our future. On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, I’m an optimist who loves to read about the latest science and medical developments and the rosy future of mankind. On Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, I’m a doomer who worries about climate change, peak oil, and over-population. I take Sundays off and don’t believe a damn thing.

B. Womack/Homestead Hill Farm: As the population continues to grow and the amount of farmland available continues to shrink, we, as global citizens as well as farmers, better investigate all the options. If GM crops enable “big ag” to continue to grow the grains that smaller operations need… then everyone should try to understand the science and not flip out over the fears. (The local old-timers tell how farmers who switched from small square bales to the large round bales were seen as radicals, turning their back on the traditional way of harvest and adopting some “new-fangeld high tech” thing.

Today, a single farmer can bale a large field in an afternoon by himself, sometimes after completeing his day job in town. This enables a small farm to be sustainable with fewer farm works. Keeping in mind that skilled farm labor is incredibly hard to find, technology that enables farmers to keep farming needs to be considered. While I don’t think ANYTHING should be accepted blindly, or without a great deal of thought and consideration, we must at least explore the options.

D. Wilde/West Texas Cotton Farm: I believe that GM cottonseed has made my operation more sustainable, because my impact on the environment has been greatly reduced. I use less chemicals and I don’t run the tractor as much, which is leaving my farmland cleaner than ever before. I believe that the technology will be able to adapt to future challenges and even more benefits for the land and the environment will be seen from GM seeds.

J. Hoadley/Slow Money Farm: We’ve lost squash to wilt, and have an issue with bugs. Some of that is not enough hands to observe the gardens as much as needed to be completely organic. Avoiding those would be an interest. I think every farm must use what works for them and their customers. When I buy grain for the chickens and ducks, admittedly cost is a factor – and if GMO helps farmers get more yield in the same area, it brings costs down.

B. Scott/corn, soybeans, popcorn & wheat farmer: GMO is not a silver bullet solution for everything. Nearly everything in farming is a trade-off. For example, my no-till fields tend to have more weed pressure than my tilled fields, but I didn’t spend any money on tillage. You just hope to gain more than you lose on each little choice. Weather wins every time no matter how you farm. We are definitely using less insecticides than we used to. GMO is a tool in the toolbox that we believe helps us cut both costs and inputs. Other resources like precision ag help us on that front as well.

5. If you could pick and choose GM traits that you would like to see available for your crop(s), whether or not they even yet exist, what would they be? This is your chance to dream!

M. Bendzela/Dow Farm: I would die for potatoes with stacked traits–resistance to blight and Colorado potato beetle. Same with all the nightshade crops. Maybe not “die.” I’d give a pinky finger for it, but only off my right hand because I play the fiddle. One day, all foods will be genetically engineered. Perhaps farmers will even be able to select and insert their own favorite traits into crops, tailoring them for their particular climates. They’ll do it in their garage. “Hybrids,” products of “conventional” breeding, may one day be as obsolete as the apples in our heritage orchard. Imagine Yellow Transparent apples that were engineered to resist scab! I spray, spray, spray (like right now: it’s scab season in Maine) to keep the fungus spores from germinating because they just ruin the appearance of those apples.

I have just one problem with GMOs: there ain’t enough of them. Bring them on.

B. Womack/Homestead Hill Farm: If I could pick GM traits, I would design pest resistant vegetables, potatoes and tomatoes that could withstand colder temperatures and floweres that would withstand the overzealous” application of weed-killers and weed-whackers by husbands hoping to neaten up the place.

D. Wilde/West Texas Cotton Farm:GM cottonseed that would produce a bale and a half of cotton to the acre on only 6” of rainfall per year. (The dream of every dryland cotton farmer out here next to the Chihuahuan Desert!)

J. Hoadley/Slow Money Farm: A tomato from which would cure all cancers. No radiation, no chemo – eat this tomato and be cancer free. That would be pretty awesome! And I think if it was available most facing cancer would take it, GMO or not. (Sleuth4Health thinks so too! I like this idea.)

B. Scott/corn, soybeans, popcorn & wheat farmer: I’m not sure I have a dream trait in mind. Nitrogen use efficiency is going to be a big deal in the future. Water use efficiency will be major. We don’t have to irrigate on our farm, but imagine if the many that do on the Plains could use less water or at a minimum make more effective use of water. I would like to see traits come to market that directly affect consumers. In fact, it would be nice if something like Golden Rice had taken off before something like Roundup Ready soybeans did. The consumer cannot easily see the benefits of biotechnology readily at this time. I believe traits that improve nutrition will help change a lot of perceptions often fueled by rhetoric and scare tactics used against biotech.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There was something in this questionnaire that really surprised me – to learn that some of the more localized CSA and farmers market types would welcome GMOs if they could get them but they’re not available for that size or type of operation. Granted, the customer base would have to be accepting of the technology, but even so, it was a surprise to me.

Again, I’d like to extend my appreciation to all the farmers who participated. I thank you for your candor and willingness to share a piece of your lives in this manner. First-hand accounts like these educate, enlighten and they’re a nice piece of Americana!

My, my, it has rained buckets here in the Portland area today, all day, won’t let up, highest rain measured for the year so far in fact. Makes me wonder if this rain is good for our local farms or is it drowning the fresh spring plantings?

Though I’ve been writing about good GMOs for awhile now, it still feels like an out and out coup every time I find a friendly GMO. I just can’t get enough! The seat I have claimed on the other side of the transgenic table grows more comfortable every day. I feel like Julee K the bad ass over here.

Here’s a story out of Aarhus University in Denmark about barley and a gene switch-off technique that engineers a healthier carbohydrate. Specifically, it describes a happy ending to the tale of two starches: the first being that which breaks down rapidly in the gut and spikes our blood sugar, the second being the more health favorable kind that passes from the small to the large intestine, then moseys along until it is broken down by bacteria.

Who among us is not concerned about bad carbs and blook sugar spikes? Seriously, this GM starch might even make the benevolent GMOs greatest hits album.

The story found on the university’s Department of Genetics and Molecular Biology webpage briefly explains the difference between amylopectin (fast starch) and amylose (slow starch). Both genetic and biotech methods were used to switch off several genes at once to achieve the desired trait of a barley plant containing pure amylose, the first of its kind according to Janne Hansen, author of the article. Enzymes were added to the starch so that a slower rate of digestion could be observed and confirmed.

The article reports that the next step is to conduct nutritional studies then eventually transfer the innovation to wheat, corn and rice.

One of the blogs I read, a vegan recipe blog called Vedged Out, recently made a big to do about its 100th post. There were attractive photo links to all the recipes, some name dropping of distinguished followers of the blog, much merriment and a well earned sense of accomplishment. It is a great blog, with great recipes (I’m actually not vegan or vegetarian, but eat that way often). It also happens to have launched in September of 2012 just like Sleuth4Health did. Vedged Out’s author, Somer, was the third “like” gravatar I ever saw at the bottom of one of my posts. And she has a great story of her own and a bazillion followers. Read here.

As I “celebrated” with Vedged Out, I became curious about how many posts I’d released to cyberspace, as I hadn’t paid much attention to that total and have always tried to simply post as much and as often as I can. Well, my 100th post had long since passed so I missed that opportunity but this morning as I stared at the 78 keys of my laptop, wondering what to write next, I glanced at my stats and saw that my last post, What If Labels Could Educate?, was my 200th! Woo hoo! Wave pom poms. Ding ding ding. Partay!

So here I am celebrating my 200th post and I do have much to celebrate. The record of how I went from anti-GMO blogger and science-ignorer to pro-science observer is all there in the archives. I am leaving it there on purpose to show, first hand, how someone can be open to new information, question what they believe, and change. If you read all the posts, which I don’t expect anyone to actually do, but if you did, you’d notice an unfolding like this:

1. Fairly neutral beginning. I meant well.

2. Close scrutiny of the California Prop 37 election (heck, I even donated fifty bucks to the Organic Consumers Association!)

3. Ronnie Cummings in one ear, Jeffrey Smith in the other, a little Mike Adams the health ranger thrown in there with some Johnathon Matthews (GM Watch).

4. Full fledged anti-GMO dogma for a few months

5. Wait a minute, I smell a rat – a tumorous Seralini rat …

This was of course a ginormous dilemma for an anti-GMO blogger. If I was starting to have doubts, what the heck was I going to write about? At first, I stopped blogging about any and all health issues concerning GMOs and just put my attention to health dangers of other foods or substances like highly processed box meals, additives in soda, a possible link between flame retardants and cognitive problems, that type of thing. All the while, bee and butterfly die-off was a favorite “go to” topic as it was and still is of great concern and I knew no one would be offended by it. It was easy to point fingers at neonics and their nasty pesticide brethren.

I posted GMO political and activism type stories, aimed my darts at multinational corporations (you know which ones) – all while secretly biding my time until I could figure out what I actually stood for. As all this inner turmoil was going on, there remained a blog that needed writing! I strove for a balance that would allow me to maintain my anti-GMO status while not painting devil’s horns on the little transgenic buggers. It was not easy!

Then one day, I simply couldn’t be anti-GMO anymore and Science Is Laughing At Us flowed from my fingertips. The gig was up. The rest is history.

So, thank you readers for allowing me to change as I did. I know the blog attracted some new readers because of my shift toward science, and I love hearing from the scientists and farmers who visit. Truth be known, I could do some serious namedropping in that regard myself! But I especially want to thank my original readers who have stuck with me since the early days. I appreciate you so very much! I know I lost some folks. How could I not? But I kept some folks too – and the ones who were willing to wade through the muck, to experience this change with me, you all mean the most! I promised I was learning along with you and that remains the case at post 201 and beyond.

I hope you all keep reading and I pledge to continue sleuthing for the sake of health. I have been contacted by several ranchers and feedlot types who want their story told. I am considering it, along with a surfeit of other health topics.

My recent experiences have also, very unexpectedly, led me down a new path toward a niche I could happily fall into – that of learning about and reporting on cutting edge science and the various technologies that are entering our experience. I believe there is great need for bloggers and writers of many different walks of life and backgrounds to sort it all out.

The future is closing in on us! Are we ready for it? I see this time as being very similar to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th century – on steroids! Technology and information continue to overhaul the way we live and work and it will only increase. The luddites among us will, I fear, get lost on the holodeck.

Maybe I need an additional blog: Sleuth4Science – has a nice ring to it… In any case, I can see this all expanding well beyond GMOs. One specific area of interest for me is synthetic biology. The scope of syn bio is probably the next big controversy after all the GMO stuff settles down. If you know of some good syn bio blogs, pass them along to me. And tell me readers, which technologies are the most exciting, promising, controversial, threatening, hardest to accept? It’s an amazing world we live in!

Again, thank you very much for reading and if you have a moment, please say hi in the comments.

I wish I could say this headline is mine: Embrace The Biotech In Your Basket. It is not, and I can’t improve upon it. I found the article for this post in a South African blog called Food Stuff. It is written by Dr Leon Van Eck, a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Genetics (Faculty of Agricultural Sciences) at Stellenbosch University in Stellenbosch, South Africa.

The whole article is excellent but there is one particular paragraph that I really, REALLY like. Even though I left the anti-GMO movement, I’ve maintained the position that labeling is at the very least inevitable. The cat is out of the bag now. There is no going back and consumers are going to demand it, but, Van Eck has a labeling idea that could probably win over a lot of folks. He writes (bold words are my edit):

With the recent rejection of California Proposition 37, labeling of food made from GE crops has gained more media coverage worldwide. Merely labeling a product “contains GMOs” makes it seem like a warning of some sort, and in fact does not allow a consumer to make an informed choice at all. It’s simple scaremongering, and a wasted opportunity to educate. As a consumer, I might want to know that a product is made from a crop engineered to use less chemical fertilizer (that is) bad for the environment, or to require less pesticide that might be harmful to farm workers. Food labeling helps us all make informed decisions, and it’s how that labeling is done that makes the difference.

What I like so much is the idea that a label should educate, not scare people. Brilliant! This kind of label could even be voluntary. Instead of denying consumers their labels, tout what the GM product offers. So many consumers feel like there is nothing in GM products for them. Tell them otherwise!

Couldn’t labels be a way to tell the biotech story? Please, share your thoughts on this.